Everything is okay with your raid. However the array believes, that there shall be a spare drive (which you do not have). So that means that it complains about it. I am pretty sure I posted a thread about it a looong time ago, as OMV created the raids always with a spare drive in mind - and you allways got this message... Check this post ... Howto remove the "SparesMissing event"

If you believe the drive is still good, you can overwrite the first blocks of that drive and readd to the raid. It is currently in failed mode and still has the raid header on it. So you can run dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sde count=10 bs=1M That will overwrite the first 10M of your drive with zeros. After that you can rejoin the disk to your array md127 and the resync will start. Hope that helps.

You can do it with the failed drive in place as mdm will mark it as failed and start in degraded mode. However if you know which drive (phyiscally) it is - you can just pull it and start as well in degraded mode. Also please be careful, as there is now no protection anymore. Any other failure will lead to a complete dataloss. You have a good backup, right?

You should consider using raid to get redundancy in your setup. ... and good backup/recovery is also key. It does sound like you do not have any backup in place for those files. If the files can be recreated that is okay, but if you required the files, or do not want to run through the hazzle of recovering them in some other way, you should consider a proper backup with a proper cycle (maybe daily). Cheers

Can you please create some captures from the commands you run and the output and paste it here? Output in textform (not images) would be best. It is a little bit difficult for me to understand what you actually try in this last step: But i know the old one is still there because i see that 20 gb is used of the drive. But i cant access the drive from prompt, just says Access denied. If you cannot access - how do you see, that 20GB are used? If you try to access, what user do you try? So giving us…

I have no knowledge in proxmox, so this answer is pulling from my generic knowledge of IT and how things work. Most likely proxmox is not transporting SMART through the virtualization layer. If that is the case you will never be able to use Smart to ask the drive for that. The only workaround would be that the proxmox layer is doing this functionality and sending out the mail. You can find information about configuration of SMART in proxmox here. forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-4-3-with-s-m-a-…

There is a difference between "works" and "entries cleaned out from OMV". So even if you removed the disks, OMV may still remember the configuration. So that was the reason why votdev mentioned the other parts where information may be alive - like shared disks, filesystems and other stuff. If that is also cleaned up - you have then "only" to remove the disks finally.

going back to 3.x would be for me the following: 1. Note down the imporant parts of exported filesystems (Samba config, Storage part, Raid part) - best make screenshots or photos with your mobile. 2. Shutdown OMV 3. Pull all Raid Disks - ensure that they are not accessible by the system for the next steps. 4. Reinstall 3.x and upgrade to latest release. 5. Reconfigure everything (with the exception of Samba). 6. Stop OMV again 7. Put in all raid disks - ensure that you really have all in place) …

Quote from Phil: “Thank you for your reply I guess my intention was to have 7TB of disk space that was mirrored across the four drives so that I could have some real-time mirroring. I'm not too hot on RAID setups so mirror seemed simple yet reliable enough for me. Does the way you suggest mean that I would have to rely on a delayed scheduled job to run before the data is synced? Thank you ” Hi Do you have LVM2 on top of the raid in use? If so the easiest way is to create a second (new) raid 1 on…

I do not get your question. So the OP asked about the fastest way - and that is definately copy or rsync within the box. However it also requires some changes for the filesystems and shares afterwords (all of them). I do not even get what you want to do. Do you mean, you want to add the 4TB disk to the system and create and raid array out of it and then grow the array? That might potentially work... not sure if it supported by the GUI.

Hi guys, I now was absent this forum for a long time and need some consulting on storage myself. I for myself live still in the old world, where Raid+LVM+FS is a great thing. I still believe in the strength of it and in the pros it comes with. Of cause I also know the downsides of it. In other words, I am expert level knowhow on the old school thing. However, I am not sure if that is today still the best way for the use case of my NAS. So I am looking into some consulting from you guys, about ho…

Using the system disk as also disk for storage (shared etc) is not supported out of the box. There is a long thread regarding this topic with a brief explanation on the start. How to partition and use OMV system disk for user data But again, this is not supported out of the box and should be done only by advanced users. The better way is to run OMV from an USB Stick (please activate the plugin for USB sticks - openmediavault-flashmemory) and to use your disk as the data disk only (no system on i…

It is possible in the following steps (generic, and you need a lot of knowledge on raid to do it correct). 1. Change your raid from raid5 to raid 6. You need one additional disk for it. ewams.net/?date=2013/05/02&vie…g_RAID5_to_RAID6_in_mdadm 2. upgrade all disks in your raid from 2TB to 4TB.1. fail 1 active disk in your raid. Raid is now degraded 2. Replace the failed disk with the bigger one. 3. Reintegrate the disk into raid and start rebuild. 4. After rebuild has finished start over from 1 u…

OMV itself does recognize the grown MD size. Hoever you need to grow your filesystem on it as well. You can do this in OMV section OMV->Storage->File Systems If you select the File System you can grow it. The Risk of the mdadm operation is the same regardless of Raid6/5. Also I do not really see the risk in there. The activity incorporates to recalculate the parity for all data area, to reflect the number of disks in this raid. The only risk might be a complete power loss. I have not tested it, …